conlangfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Group Project
Start-General-Vocabulary-Organization-Innovations-Other I have split this up to ease things The Emperor Zelos 15:48, May 28, 2010 (UTC) since this is growing FAST i suggest you QUICKLY split things! The Emperor Zelos 22:56, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Alphabet and Regularity (proposed) It would be best to have absolute regularity with all parts of speech. But in order to do that, we need to decide which letters can be used. Vowels: a e i o u Consonants: b d f g k l m n p r s t v w y z Diphthongs: ng, ay, ey, oy So for regularity: Anyone want to add/subtract anything? Razlem 23:48, May 27, 2010 (UTC) Maybe not so regular. The -o rule drives me nuts in esperanto. How about nouns end in a consonant, and thenSo for regularity: Stuff that requires shorter words should be able to end in consonants. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:09, May 28, 2010 (UTC) As long as it's a vowel followed by a consonant. The whole idea is to be able to change meaning without creating a new word/ending (Esperanto: teatro- "theater" teatra-"theatrical"). This is assuming that the roots all end in a consonant. Razlem 02:24, May 28, 2010 (UTC) I was thinking, say theatre is "teater", then theatrical is "teatera," and theatrically is "teateri." Much like Esperanto. Note the changes I made above to verbs. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:24, May 28, 2010 (UTC) I suppose, but would every word end in R? If it has to be a consonant, L may be easier to say (and to hear). Razlem 03:51, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Well no. Not every noun has to end in r. There could be a group of consonants that would be natural nouns (say r, p, t, k), artificial nouns (s, f, g, b, d) or something like that. But lol I was thinking a Korean/Japanese system where there's only one liquid which could sound like an l or an r depending on the situation. But check out my syllabic system and that would probably change all this. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:02, May 28, 2010 (UTC) I think Razlem's system is fine, the -o thing in Esperanto is fine and it sounds great. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:52, May 28, 2010 (UTC) That was not biased at all… —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ''Final Decision: Regularity It would be much easier to have one letter for each part of speech. We can ditch the Natural/Artificial distinction if you want. Since we've established the sound for "y", maybe nouns can end in "y" instead of the Esperanta "o". Razlem 01:49, June 6, 2010 (UTC) Idk, I liked the distinction. But after this long discussion over the syllable structure, we'll make it the last medial vowel that can do it (like the y in the nonsense word plawryng). Y and O can be the artificial and natural nouns. A can be verbs, I for adjectives, E for adverbs, U for miscellaneous. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:04, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Combining words may become difficult if it's the last medial vowel (gelyl + noklom = ?). Also, what do you mean by "miscellaneous"? Razlem 03:22, June 7, 2010 (UTC) There can be a joining vowel like in Esperanto. Why not u? And by miscellaneous, I mean just random particles, numbers, etc. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Ok, wait one sec. Gelyl won't always be "gelyl", it would change forms: gelal, gelil... So which form would one use for making a compound word? In Esperanto, the identifying vowel is omitted, leaving only the roots. We can't do that easily with medial vowel identification; the concept may be more trouble than it's worth in terms of simplicity. Razlem 02:51, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::If the different forms (gelal, gelil, gelel) are not distinct, you would just use gelilnoklom or even gelil noklom. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:44, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Let's just go with "gelil noklom". It's straightforward enough. And I think that covers it as far as regularity. Razlem 17:46, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::But then, what's the distinction between, say (lol Pokémon analogy) "Happiness Pokémon" (Species name of Chansey/Blissey) and "happy Pokémon." I know for sure that both appear in the games… —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:33, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Happiness is the noun form of the adjective "happy". Take the example "steamboat". You can use the adjective form of steam and the noun form of boat: (steam)i (boat)y. Razlem 02:45, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::No, I mean happiness would be an adjective in that case. But I guess here's where the medial vowel system comes in. Say "happiness" is "higoom" and pokémon is "pokemon." I guess you could say "higaam pokemon" for happy pokémon and "higooma pokemon" for happiness pokémon. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:47, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::So back to this. If we use the suffix "to" meaning "state of", you can just say "higiimto" for state of happy, and "higiimti pokemon" for "happiness pokemon" Razlem 04:25, July 5, 2010 (UTC) ::When I consider replying to that discursively, I wonder to myself, how does this benefit me? We both have auxiliary business languages, so why exactly are we doing this? Anyway, in my infinitive system, it would be higiim pokemon for happy pokemon, and higaami for happiness pokemon. I just got the system mixed up with esperanto. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:07, July 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Both of our auxlangs have flaws. When we create languages by ourselves, we overlook things or take things for granted. Second or third opinions never hurt. But anyway, this happy/happiness thing will eventually go into the derivation system, which we haven't finalized yet. My bad to bring it up again. ::Razlem 04:43, July 6, 2010 (UTC) ::True. I'm working on redoing Gurcaj, but now it's a Filipinoclone. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:18, July 6, 2010 (UTC) Sounds fine to me. Another thing we should address is a table of correlatives. What about an Esperanto-esque table? Razlem 03:52, June 12, 2010 (UTC) That might work. A little weird, but these aren't words that would be used much anyway… —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 19:10, June 12, 2010 (UTC) "A little weird, but '''these '''aren't words that would be used much '''anyway'…" :P That'll work. What's the "Time" distinction? Razlem 23:12, June 12, 2010 (UTC) touché. keew is used for things like "When did you go to the store" and kewoo is for "When is your favorite time of day?" See the distinction? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 00:41, June 13, 2010 (UTC) Ok, and characteristic? Razlem 01:35, June 13, 2010 (UTC) kuii is for "What are you like?" and kuee is for "How did he run?" (e.g. quickly, slowly, stupidly). —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:43, June 13, 2010 (UTC) "How" would be What Manner- kutee Razlem 01:52, June 13, 2010 (UTC) My bad. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:35, June 13, 2010 (UTC) Word Building I'm not a huge fan of consonant clusters. I was thinking of a system similar to Japanese, with a successive alternation of vowel/consonant. Of course, this would eliminate some diphthongs. Razlem 01:56, May 29, 2010 (UTC) That actually drives me nuts because I tend to find happiness in scant syllables (like Mandarin or Vietnamese which can be spoken surprisingly quickly and acccurately despite ambiguity in the former and large phonemic inventory in the second). I don't like consonant clusters much either, though. Maybe a system more like Thai/Khmer would be better. Like you can have some consonant clusters like phra, khla, phnom, krung, but nothing to the extent of Dutch. It increases the phonemic inventory, but you don't hear Thai speakers slow down to the hebetude of English. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:05, May 29, 2010 (UTC) We could do a maximum of any two consonants, any more must be separated by a vowel.'' I'm just trying to keep things regular. Razlem 02:58, May 29, 2010 (UTC)'' Okay. And two consonants can't be next to each other at the end of a word. But we still need to decide on the phonology, right? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:05, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Right, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Voting is an option, but entrants shouldn't be able to vote. Razlem 03:42, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Why not just debate on the divergences: #Include "ǝ" as a vowel? #One liquid ® or two (l and r)? #Voiced consonants? #Consonants: nh, h, nq, q, x? #Tones? #Diphthongs with w? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:02, May 29, 2010 (UTC) What we must not forget is that it is an auxiliary language. So, we must keep it simple. Not to the point of minimalism, but we should avoid very complex clusters or very uncommon sounds. But there is one thing we can do so that it is at the same time simple and phoneme-rich: allophones. See e.g. how in Classical Arabic there are only three vowels, 'a', 'i' and 'u', but they are actually realized as at least five different sounds, 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', 'u', because some consonants affect the pronunciation of vowels (mostly of 'a'). So we can establish limits of variation for some sounds. This would have several consequences. Imagine for instance we decide not to make a difference between 'r' and 'l'. "International" words would keep the original sound ("telephone" would be something like 'telefon'; "formula" would continue like it is), while original words would have only one letter or the other. Of course, this free variation would be applied wisely, only to a defined set of phonemes, for it should be a positive characteristic of the language, not something to create a complete mess. Panglossa | Talk 14:26, May 29, 2010 (UTC) I don't get the big deal with "international" words. Chinese doesn't do that stuff and even then, it doesn't let "international" words disrupt its phonology. For example, there are some words that are made using compounding, i.e. diànhuà, lit electricity-speech, meaning telephone, or gōnggòngqìchē, meaning "bus" which translates literally as public-vapor-vehicle. And then there are some which are edited to fit the phonology, like hànbǎobāo, which translates to Chinese-castle-bag (???) but it doesn't add extra letters to the alphabet. I think we should take an approach like the Chinese because it reduces irregularities. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:16, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ::The reason I proposed that is to allow words continue to be pronounced the way they already are pronounced throughout the world. Imagine e.g. the language doesn't include the letter 'v', but we decide to keep words like "television", the sound v would be allowed in this word. That is more of a tolerance level, considering it is an international language, rather than a complex dual pronunciation system. More or less the same thing that happens in Esperanto: although the letter 'r' has a standard pronunciation, Americans pronounce it like English 'r', Italians like Italian and so on, and this doesn't interfere with communication.Panglossa | Talk 18:07, May 29, 2010 (UTC) #Include "ǝ" as a vowel? Perhaps as an accented letter or diphthong #One liquid ® or two (l and r)? Two, Alveolar lateral approximant for L, alveolar trill for R. #Voiced consonants? L, M, N, R, V, Z #Consonants: nh, h, nq, q, x? nh, h, nq, q, x (as kh?) #Tones? Not for an auxlang #Diphthongs with w? Ok Razlem 15:36, May 29, 2010 (UTC) 1. I would rather not include diacritics. They are sort of redundant. I think many people can type ǝ easily on their keyboard, and keep in mind it would be easier to write than ǒ or something. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:48, May 29, 2010 (UTC) 2. Cierto. 3. Let's add NG and take out V and Z because neither exists in Chinese or Korean, and voiced obstruents might be difficult for Chinese and Korean people anyway. :P 4. X as in kh. 5. At least keep long and short consonants. They seem intimidating at first but they come naturally after a short while. 6. Cierto. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:48, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ǝ can't be easily typed on an English Mac. There aren't any keyboard shortcuts for it. Razlem 16:19, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, I figured out a way :) For future reference (Mac Users) System Preferences > Language > Keyboard Input > Azeri Set up the Command+Space shortcut to switch keyboards ə is the apostrophe/quotation key Razlem 17:56, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :Lol yes it can; I have a mac and I can type almost anything. Set the input to "US extended." There are several random ways to create symbols. Fot ǝ, try shift+alt+; and then press e. You can easily type ŋ, ɲ, ƥ, ǒ, ɔ̂̀, Ƣ, ő, ḿ, ũ, ŭ, ŷ, ì with a little practice. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:08, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Please don't forget us siple mortal people who don't have Macs... :D Panglossa | Talk 18:14, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Lol there's a good keyboard shortcut for you. Double click: ǝ press ctrl+c, then the useful keyboard shortcut is control+v. :) —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:18, May 29, 2010 (UTC) #''Include "ǝ" as a vowel?'' -> yes, provided we find a simple way to represent it (that is, no accents or unusual characters) #''One liquid ® or two (l and r)?'' -> A single one, maybe varying, like in Japanese or Korean. #''Voiced consonants?'' -> OK #''Consonants: nh, h, nq, q, x?'' -> What sounds do they represent? We should rather avoid digraphs. #''Tones?'' -> I like tones, but for an auxlang, definitely no!!! #''Diphthongs with w?'' -> yes Panglossa | Talk 18:07, May 29, 2010 (UTC) 1. Well if "ǝ" is the only special character, you could just find it on wikipedia and use copy paste. Or if you have a mac you could just use shift-alt-;+e. 2. Okay. I thought that would be better, but a trill is fine too. 4. Yeah, keep x (x in IPA) and h (h in IPA). The others are too foreign for most. 5. By tones I didn't mean those Chinese things that have American's begging pitifully to Chinese people to understand them. I mean the relatively common lengthenings that exist in almost all languages (except languages with "real" tones lol) which could easily be demonstrated with an accent mark as in Hungarian or Irish or by dooubling leetteerrs as in Finnish. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:18, May 29, 2010 (UTC) : Do you mean Vowel Length? Or simply Stress change? Because those are very different from tones. Also, what about Pitch Accent? It seems to be the easiest form of tonal usage (only having two tones; up down, or down up). That, I think, could be easily represented by the use of graves and acutes. Also, I think the easiest thing for people though would be Stress, like in Spanish or even English (compare pro'duce' to pro'duce, or ésta versus está). Much more compact! :) LctrGzmn 00:38, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :Double letters are fine (and would be way easier to type). Also, the shift-alt-e combo won't work for me, even with U.S. Extended. Razlem 18:57, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :I didn'tsay that. I said shift+alt+; and then e. (Detectivekenny) :№́<-- That's what I get from shift, alt, ;, e. :XDD you have to let go of shift and alt before you press e. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:31, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :Ah, I see. But for me it's easier to just do command+space+; ''Final Decision: Phonology To make a final decision, we need the IPA for the vowels, consonants, and diphthongs: Vowels: a e i o u ə Consonants: b d f g h k l m n p r s t w x y Dipthongs: ng ay ey oy əy aw iw ow əw Tones: aa ee ii oo uu əə :What do the letters x and y stand for in the Consonants list? If x stands for its IPA value, what about merging it with h, as they are veri similar and are in free variation in a great number of languages? As for y, I guess it stands for j. :Should we add palatal sibilants ʃ and ʒ? :What does Diphthong ng stand for? Panglossa | Talk 17:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :What does the Tones line mean, exactly? ::If we clarify these questions, this proposed set of phonemes has my green flag. Panglossa | Talk 17:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC) From my understanding, y= j; a merge of h and x is agreeable. I vote X should take the place of both NG =ŋ I guess it's technically a digraph. What I'm not sure of is the sound for ə. In Azeri, it's ae, but in English, it's a mid-central reduced vowel (if it's the former, the combination ae would suffice) The tones represent longer sounds. Razlem 19:04, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :So, they are not "tones", they are long vowels. Vowel length as a distinctive feature may be interesting, but is it desirable for an auxlang? :For the schwa (ə), we could do like in Welsh and use the letter 'y' for it. So we keep using only plain ascii characters and use one letter that would otherwise be left out (we then use 'j' for the j sound, sticking to IPA). Panglossa | Talk 02:34, June 1, 2010 (UTC) Long vowels do exist in almost every language, English "l'''aw", Spanish "manz'a'''na", so I think it would be good to have for a Terran auxlang. That would work for the schwa and the y, but that was just my interpretation of the letter. I'm not exactly sure what Detectivekenny had in mind when he suggested it. Razlem 02:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :What I mean about long vowels is that it may present some problem if we use it as a distinctive feature. Even languages which have long vowels (like English and Spanish as you said) do not rely on this distinction to tell one word from another. :But I've just thought of something else: if we settle for a monosyllabic language (or something next to that), we could use vowel length as a morphological element. We could use it, i.e., to make plural of nouns or to indicate past tense on verbs, something like 'ka' "person", 'kaa' "people" or 'ne' "say", 'nee' "said". Or also some kind of derivation, like 'ne' "word", 'nee' "speak". Panglossa | Talk 03:28, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :Maybe not from different words, but longer vowels tend to be where the stress is. Relating it to the topic below, we could use long vowels to denote stress. :Razlem 03:57, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :Use h for x/h. Chinese uses the letter h which makes the x sound except it makes the h sound before a. Also it may be a good idea to take out "l." Seeing how much trouble my three-year-old cousin has with it, it may be difficult for people not used to it. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :Alright, H is acceptable. :Many major languages use the L sound (Chinese, English, Arabic, Spanish...), it would be unusual not to include it in a Terran auxlang. If it's the distinction between L and R, we can allow a retroflex approximant. I'm curious, what is your cousin's parent language? Razlem 15:23, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :English :) Idk, it's okay to include it. I'm just suggesting. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:37, June 1, 2010 (UTC) ::The proposed glottal stop (Ø) should be replaced with a simpler symbol, like (') ::As for (ǝ), which I'm understanding to be ʌ, replace the existing "y" with "j", and use "y" instead. ::Razlem 01:33, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::XDD by Ø I meant to be as the null symbol, since glotal stops would be used for null initial consonants (iao, ang, o). I don't get what you mean about the y's and j's. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:58, June 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Right now, we have the letter Y = j. The new idea is to have J = j and Y = ʌ Razlem 05:09, June 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Good idea, we'll go with that. I was thinking have Y be ǝ instead of ^ because ǝ exists in lots of languages. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 05:37, June 5, 2010 (UTC) Think we can add some sibilants? Since we don't have 'x', we can use it as a sibilant marker: (this is very European, but just throwing some ideas around) sx = sh cx = ch zx = zh Razlem 21:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC) Lulz, got bored and annoyed of arguing about organization. Haven't given up; I'm just stalling. We do in fact, have "x" used, for IPA x. And I would think those are good, as most languages have sibilants, but there's lots of variation. Chinese sibilants are alveo-palatal, retroflex, and alveolar, while English are postalveolar and alveolar, and in Viet Nam they have alveolar-palatal (x, gi), palatal (ch), retroflex (tr, s, z), alveolar ®. Because of the variation, I would want to avoid them altogether. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:26, June 30, 2010 (UTC) As long as they can be distinguished from each other, there shouldn't be a problem. If we eliminated based on regional variation, we wouldn't have any letters o_0 Mexican Spanish "d" versus English "d" for example, European Spanish "z" versus Mex. "z". The list goes on. Razlem 03:59, June 30, 2010 (UTC) Personally I don't like the idea on counting on the idea that people can understand differences. We don't know whether this language will end up like French (difficult to understand you if you're even slightly off in pronunciation) or English (lol, my sibilants are lateral fricatives sometimes). It has little to do with distinction between things like "caught" and "cot." And if this going to be an economically used language, we'd better think about the merchants in loud environments trying to sell stuff. Just stick to alveolars and be fine. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:10, July 1, 2010 (UTC) Stress Fixed stress (like in Esperanto, Polish, Hungarian...) or variable stress position? In the case we decide for fixed stress, where would it be? (a good average would be next-to-last like Esperanto or Polish) In case we decide for variable stress, will it be predictable (like in Arabic or Portuguese) or not (like in English or Italian)? If not predictable, how shall we decide where it falls? Panglossa | Talk 03:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC) Penultimate is fine, especially if we're going to have regular endings. If we use the long vowel system, it could be variable. Razlem 03:52, June 1, 2010 (UTC) Hungarian has first-syllable-stress and long/short vowels. That system works, even for long words like goocbye (viszontlaataasra). —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :I like the idea of stress following long vowels. A system like that of Classical Arabic seems very appropriate, as it is both predictable (does not require diacritics) and yields a good variety in pronunciation, contributing to the beauty of the language. Basically, stress falls on the '''last long syllable' of a word. A syllable is considered long if it has a long vowel or if it ends in more than one consonant. One possible argument against this system is that it produces words in which stress falls long before the last syllable, what may not be desirable for an auxlang. But this is solved if we do like in Latin, which uses the same system but establishes a limit for stress placement (it can not go beyond the antepenultimate syllable). Panglossa | Talk 15:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :Just use the Hungarian system. It works for words like szaamiigooteep with all stressed and also for words like magyar with none. It would be a better auxlang. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 18:37, June 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Stressing all first syllables is rather clumsy to most people not used to it. Seems to me a bad idea for a conlang. Anyway, if our language tends to have mostly short words (one, two or tops three syllables), it does not present a problem though.Panglossa | Talk 19:13, June 1, 2010 (UTC) ::I believe we decided on particles rather than agglutination, so stressing the first syllable shouldn't be a problem. Razlem 19:38, June 1, 2010 (UTC) :::So the proposal, based on this discussion, is a fixed stress placed on the first syllable. Monosyllabic words do not have double letters (yes? no?). Stress in words with two or three syllables is denoted by an elongated vowel (words can not exceed 3 syllables). Razlem 00:26, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Whoah, not what I was thinking at all. I was thinking just like Hungarian, long vowels are a whole new set of vowels so you have words with any number of long or short vowels. And if we want compound words then better not limit our opportunities with compound words. And fyi first-syllable stress is a little clumsy but you get used to it. If you'd rather have final stress, that's less clumsy. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:47, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :::It seems more natural to elongate a stressed vowel, but perhaps I'm biased. Howsabout we just have penultimate stress? (*sigh* like Esperanto...) Razlem 13:45, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Lol. I don't want to have anything to do with Esperanto. But that problem aside, penultimate stress would be strange, especially for speakers of languages that don't have stress. Before we decide on stress, let us decide on intonation. I would take the common route and have the sentence's pitch go down like Hungarian (you can Youtube that). Second we need to decide the type of stress, rather than just randomly assigning it. WIthout this, the language would kill Chinese and Vietnamese people. For first-syllable stress, maybe just a fifth pitch up would work. However, for final-syllable stress, maybe it would be a falling tone from the fifth down to the first. That should clear up any ambiguities and make a stressed syllable less likely to be elongated by Europeans and Americans. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:11, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Let's keep a variable sentence intonation; it takes a long time for the average person to learn a new rhythm. Stress should be an intensified vowel rather than a changing pitch. Razlem 19:16, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Talk like a linguist already. Variable intonation is crazy, screwed up, and signing your language's death warrant. You need to talk to someone who was native to Chinese and then had to learn English. Or conversely anyone who only spoke English who had to learn Chinese. A Chinese person would have trouble catching on because Chinese people never had to think about their intonation and it's extremely irregular in English. Keep the Quechua system where pitch always goes down, even for questions. You're so Anglocentric you might as well just have everyone learn English (sorry I get a little hyped up over this stuff). And onto stress. What do you mean intensifying? You mean saying it louder? Yeah that would definetely catch on (hint of sarcasm). No language ever uses fortitude to distinguish words. What the heck do you mean by intensifying? "Intensification" may be different for English speakers as it would for speakers of French, and then what? A Chinese person would probably think you meant to say the word louder. Talk like a linguist, and sorry again for sounding so angry. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:50, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :::I understand that you're angry and I'm sorry if I come off as Anglocentric. I am not familiar with Asian languages and I don't know what they can/prefer to say. We can go with your idea, but I need an example :/ Razlem 23:36, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :::I don't mind penultimate stress, but keep stress as higher-pitched and intonationas falling. Here's your example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS3OIc3GCy0 —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 00:52, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Ok, so we have the type of stress as well as sentence intonation. As for stress placement, I am indifferent. As long as we don't have an insane amount of phonemes, first-syllable can work. However, if we use first-syllable, it would mean eliminating long vowels. Razlem 22:01, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Why? Hungarian has first-syllable stress and long vowels. Do I need to find a Youtube video for that? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:42, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Lol, that won't be necessary. I actually was looking at some Hungarian videos earlier. I don't have anything against long vowels personally, but I don't know how well they would fit into an auxlang unless they were tied to stress. Razlem 22:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::That's what you think. Take the word "parallel." PAR is stressed, and LEL is long. You would be surprised that in this case stress and vowel length arent tied at all. Just standardize everything and there's no room for the language to evolve with strange habits among different speakers. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 23:01, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::I have never heard an elongation of the LEL in parallel. We can keep long vowels if you want. Razlem 23:33, June 3, 2010 (UTC) :::I second you. I have learnt it as 'pærəlɛl and I have always heard it with three short syllables. Just did a check and this is how I find it in all dictionaries at hand (just one example here).Panglossa | Talk 14:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC) ::You've never heard of it because you never knew it, you just said it. Okay we keep long vowels. But where do you want the stress? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 23:48, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::I prefer penultimate, but first-syllable would be fine as well. I wish I could post an audio sample, I don't elongate the "e", I use a reduced vowel, like everyone else in this region. Razlem 01:29, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::idk. Maybe that's a bad example. Try simplify. idk. I've lived in two reasonably-distanced regions, both of which are none of your business, but both used lengthening on lots of words. Take the word "practise." Idk, but there are lots of words out there. I mean, when I say parallel, the primary stress goes on par and then the lel takes the lengthening. If it didn't, it would sound like parallul. Is that how you say it? And we can keep penultimate. It's viral among languages influenced by Spanish. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:51, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Lol, yeah, it's more or less "paerələl". The New Orleans dialect in particular uses ə extensively :P Razlem 04:10, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Okay. I don't hear it that way much but I don't hear it much outside school at all so... But trust me there are tons of words out there that have long vowels on places other than stressed. Before we let unknowing English speakers trash the language with extra lengthenings, let's standardise it. Penultimate is fine with me. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC) I feel there has been some confusion here. Stress is one thing, vowel length is another thing, tone/pitch yet another thing. They are at principle complete independent features, though many languages may tie them together in their phonological structure. Hungarian, for instance, has both short and long vowels, but these have no effect on stress placement as every word is stressed on the first syllable. In English, vowel length is not a distinctive feature for itself, for it is bound to vowel quality (that is, a "short I" is not the same vowel as a "long I", compare e.g. 'piss' and 'piece' ), so here too, length has nothing to do with stress. But in other languages such as Portuguese, in which vowel length is neither distinctive nor meaningfull, it is bound to stress and both are somewhat subordinated to rhythm. We don't even mind about long vowels in Portuguese, they are naturally lengthened in stressed syllables BUT this lengthening depends on rhythm; that is, a stressed vowel CAN, but does not NEED to, be lengthened to fit the rhythmic pattern of a phrase). Anyway, if our language is to have short roots and rely on particles, stressing the root of each word seems nothing more than natural. If it yields a tendence to next-to-last stress OR first-syllable stress AND this fits agreeably to the language, I don't see a problem in accepting any of these systems. Panglossa | Talk 14:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Now, tone and intonation are a completely different subject in which I myself have no preference, I'll accept what you settle.Panglossa | Talk 14:56, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Future Plans I'm showing this page to a couple of my friends; one offered to create a Rosetta-Stone-like program when we're finished. I thought that was an excellent idea (but it might be while before we get to that point). Opinions? e easily on 02:08, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Isn't this just sort of practice? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:09, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Wow, great plans for our dear offspring :D Panglossa | Talk 02:14, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Well, if we like how it turns out at the end, then we should try it. Razlem 02:18, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Syllable Structure (C = consonant; V = vowel; S = semivowel) *V *VC *VS *CV *SV *CVS *SVC *CVC *SVS I guess we won't include syllables more complex than this (CSVSCC for instance...), I just listed all possibilities, please share your opinions. Panglossa | Talk 18:21, May 29, 2010 (UTC) My set of choice: *CV *SV *CVS *SVC *CVC Syllables starting with a vowel (V, VC, VS) may lead to ambiguity in connected speech, mainly if we are going to stress on monosyllabic words/roots. We can establish a glottal stop to be used whenever a syllable begins with a vowel (just like in German), or at least when some ambiguity is possible.Panglossa | Talk 18:29, May 29, 2010 (UTC) That set is fine with me Razlem 18:52, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Add: CCV CSV CCVS CSVS CCVC CSVC. If we are going to do a Thai system, then these are crucial. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 12:47, May 30, 2010 (UTC) I guess a syllable of the CCVC type would be something like 'trap' or 'klat', is it right? So we should establish types of consonants (as it was already mentioned by someone) and limit those consonant clusters. E.g., if we use L for "liquid" (meaning 'r' and/or 'l'), we would have: *CLV *CSV *CLVS *CSVS *CLVC *CSVC *CLVL *CSVL But what happens if we have a compound word with two syllables like CLVCCLVC (imagine something like 'klaktrep'), what seems to me a bit too complex for an auxlang. Limiting syllables to CVC tops gives space for some nice clusters, CVCCVC 'kakrep' for example, which may be understood either as CV-CCVC or as CVC-CVC. Panglossa | Talk 22:50, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Listen to any youtube video in Thai (i.e. search "Thai News Broadcast"). You can see it works fine for them and you would never guess just by listening that Thai roots are mostly monosyllabic. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:32, May 31, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Panglossa, and his initial choice of consonants is perfect to create a vocabulary. We shouldn't add more than what's required for an auxlang. Razlem 04:41, May 31, 2010 (UTC) Large numbers of phonemes are necessary in a language for it to be efficient. If you do not want the language to be efficient, I should abdicate this project and work on my own auxlang because I work towards efficiency. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:54, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :What do you say if we have only five vowels and thirteen consonants? Panglossa | Talk 15:04, June 7, 2010 (UTC) I agree that we need many phonemes, but consonant clusters aren't very efficient: CVSCVSCVSCVS "bajsowdeygoj" is more efficient than CSVLCSVLCSVL "bjartjelvwar" (which would also break the cluster rule proposal) Razlem 22:30, June 2, 2010 (UTC) Here. Almost all languages, even Japanese, have CSV possibilities, so we shouldn't limit our possibilities. We should take the Cantonese/Vietnamese/Chinese approach with maximum of CSVC. I don't mind a language without weird consonant clusters. But what's a language without affricates? At least ts is necessary, and it would be idiotic to limit possibilities like that. I would keep away from bj and like stuff because I dislike when consonants are put together randomly. Note how even Esperanto has plosive-nasal stuff like knabo. I would want to keep the system exactly the same as thai plus affricates. If you want to have an inefficient auxlang, let me work on my own auxlang. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 22:41, June 2, 2010 (UTC) Ok, so we can add CSV and CCV. No biggie: *CV *SV *CVS *SVC *CVC *CSV *CCV *CSVC I'm not sure why you thought affricates would be avoided though. Razlem 23:10, June 2, 2010 (UTC) Just go ahead and add CSVC. It exists in almost all languages. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 00:46, June 3, 2010 (UTC) And also you can't really have CSVC without CSVS, right? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC) Correct Razlem 04:11, June 4, 2010 (UTC) I hadn't initially proposed syllables like SVS or CSVS because, from my experience with conlangs and vocabulary generation, it yields very poor results. But I have to admit that this is subjective, I really don't like syllables like jaj or kjaw in my languages. But if their frequency is low, I think it is perfectly acceptable. Having done a quick survey on Latin, I found the following syllable structures: *V (a) *CV (te) *VC (at) *CLV (pro) *CLVC (cras) *SCV (sto) *SCLV (scri-bo) *SCVC (stet) *SCLVC (struc-tura) *CVCS (mens, rex) *CLVCS (trans) #L = liquids L or R; S = sibilant (actually only s), *not* semivowel! #Some sequences of syllables are not very common, e.g. the sequence ((S)C)VCS-CLV©, while others do not occur at all, e.g. (CL)VCS-SCLV©. Panglossa | Talk 15:21, June 7, 2010 (UTC) I wasn't thinking VS structure would be like aw. I was thinking it would be the diphthong aŭ. Basing off Asian languages there would be syllables like yao jaǔ, hui xŭeĭ in Chinese, and meow as in English, which are not that bad. And I would avoid the S-consonant construction as it would be crazy for Hispanic and Vietnamese. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:42, June 7, 2010 (UTC) :aw and aŭ are the same thing (from a practical point of view, I mean). No problem with syllables of the type jaǔ et similia, I just don't like them very much. :D Panglossa | Talk 15:09, June 8, 2010 (UTC)